Case FileIndependent investigation

Defamation / receivership / immunity at hearings

Receiver - Officer of the Court ?

Court Officer

Receiver - Officer of the Court, Chen Fisher Gabbay Law Office

During the hearing held at the defendant’s request in an enforcement case at the Haifa enforcement office, Dotan Tzur, attorney, counsel for the receiver, of the Chen Fisher Gabbay law office in Netanya, a firm jointly owned by Victor Fisher, attorney, Ofer Chen, attorney, and Elad Gabbay, attorney, began a campaign of accusations against the defendant, who had recently returned to Israel.

According to the protocol of the hearing of 13 January 2026, it was claimed that the defendant had worked as a private investigator and “learned” dirty tricks, and that a person who does not hand over a vehicle in breach of an order is a “criminal”. It was also claimed that the affidavit he submitted was “a lie and a falsehood”. The protocol attributes these statements to Dotan Tzur, attorney, alone. They are not attributed to Victor Fisher, attorney, Ofer Chen, attorney, or Elad Gabbay, attorney.

At the same hearing, the creditor’s representative stated, before being questioned, that the creditor was willing to settle the debt, grant a discount or spread the payments. The registrar suggested that the defendant leave with the creditor’s representative and work it out.

What was heard after the hearing

According to a transcript of a recording submitted by the defendant, the time recorded is 13:15 on the same day, after the hearing, in the presence of other people. The transcript also notes a participant marked “an employee of Chen Fisher” and “the audience”, who reacts and asks “What happened? Who is this? Is this your lawyer?”.

According to the transcript, Dotan Tzur, attorney, says to the defendant “thief, fraudster and criminal” and “scum of the human race”. He also says “I will make sure you never get a settlement in your life”. The defendant, according to the transcript, answers “Come on, let’s make peace”. These documents indicate that at the hearing the creditor’s representative stated a willingness to settle, while in the transcript the receiver’s counsel is heard saying that there will be no settlement. The transcript is a party’s document, and its authenticity has not been examined in any proceeding.

A receiver, an officer of the court ?

In enforcement proceedings the enforcement registrar may appoint a receiver. In a decision of the Netanya Magistrate’s Court of 28 July 2026 (Civil Case 41259-05-12, Ketabi v. Ketabi) it was held that a receiver is an “officer of the court”, that his professional duty is owed to the court and to the purpose of the receivership, and that he is not the long arm of the person who asked for his appointment. The derived question is what is expected of the counsel of such an officer of the court when he addresses a debtor in a case of a car sold by a receiver.

What the case law says about words spoken at a hearing

Section 13(5) of the Prohibition of Defamation Law provides that a publication by a party or his counsel made “in the course of a hearing” cannot ground criminal or civil proceedings. In Khair v. Gil (Civil Leave to Appeal 1104/07, 19 August 2009) the Supreme Court held, by majority, that the immunity is absolute, even where the words are harsh and even where it is alleged that they were spoken maliciously. The minority view was that it should not be extended to words spoken out of malice.

Uri Shenhar’s book, Dinei Lashon Hara (Defamation Law), surveys the structure of the tort, and in it section 13 is headed “permitted publications”. According to the book, the examination of a given publication is also conducted in stages, and the examination of defences comes after the questions whether there was a publication and whether it is defamation (Shenhar, pp. 132 to 133, referring to Civil Appeal 6903/12 Canwest Global Communications Corp. v. Ezur, 22 July 2015).

When immunity becomes a licence

Not everyone sees the rule as the last word. Critics in the legal literature warn that full immunity may be read by litigants and their counsel as permission to speak without restraint, and they point to other tools. The court may award costs and strike statements, and the Bar may hear a disciplinary complaint, since the rules of professional ethics require a lawyer to argue with civility and to respect the opposing party. In disciplinary proceedings it is of no significance that the words were true.

Before the hearing, during it and after it

The immunity in section 13(5) is limited to words spoken “in the course of a hearing”. Whether words spoken after the hearing ended, in the presence of others, fall within that definition is a factual and legal question that a court will decide. This article does not decide it. In any event, immunity from suit is not a judicial finding that the words are true, and it does not exempt a person from the norms that apply to a lawyer, and to one who holds the role of an officer of the court, toward the debtor facing him.

Sources